My Blueberry Nights is the first film shot in English by Wong Kar Wai.
Elizabeth, a girl with a broken heart, leaves New York to start a journey of emotional healing around the States; she will work in several night cafes and bars and meet different characters, with whom she will get involved. The story is told through the postcards and letters that Elizabeth sends to her special friend Jeremy, the owner of her favourite café. Most of the movie happens during night time.
My Blueberry Nights is, in a way, an homage to the characters, themes and the ambience of the black and white classic movies of the 1950s... but shot in glorious colours. The movie is an ode to the life of the American urban nights and of its characters.
This is a very artistic and stylish film, in which the settings, the characters, the colours, the textures, the music, and the wardrobe have been taken care of to the minimal detail.
The acting is good in general. I found Rachel Weisz, David Strathairn and Natalie Portman excellent in their respective roles. Jude Law is correct as cafe owner Jeremy, in a role that does is not dramatically demanding. On the contrary, I found the presence of Norah Jones as Elizabeth a big mistake; she is a great musician and singer, but she doesn't have any dramatic talent.
One of the main flaws of the movie is the underdevelopment of Elizabeth's character. She is supposed to be the main character in the movie, but she ends being only a link between the different stories. Elizabeth's miseries and emotional struggle are barely hinted, and it is difficult to empathise with her or understand her actions.
The film has poor reviews in general, but I loved it in spite of its flaws because of its stylish atmosphere, its emotional depiction of the American underground and night life, the wonderful music, and some of the performances.
Manderlay is the second instalment of Lars Von Trier's thought-provoking trilogy "USA - Land of Opportunities". The story starts exactly where Dogville ended. Grace, her father, and their bunch of paid gangsters stop to eat at Manderlay (Alabama), a plantation where slavery persists 70 years after its Abolition. Idealistic Grace decides to stay, free the black people, and start a communal free plantation.
The story is narrated in eight chapters: 1/ In which we happen upon Manderlay and meet the people there. 2/ The freed enterprise of Manderlay. 3/ The Old Lady's Garden. 4/ In which Grace means business. 5/ Shoulder to Shoulder. 6/ Hard times at Manderlay. 7/ Harvest. 8/ In which Grace settles with Manderlay and the film ends. The setting, like in Dogville, is an almost empty theatre set with minimalist elements of architecture, furniture and floor white drawings to mark Manderlay's different spaces and buildings. The camera wanders around the set very close to the actors, as if the viewer was filming them with his/her own video-camera; there are bird's view shots, too, in which the characters look like little pawns on a chess board. The Spartan setting helps the viewer to focus on the story and its message, not on superfluous things.
Trier is always merciless depicting Society and Human Nature, with both their flaws and virtues. Despite his bad name, he is a a true artist, and it is one of an artist' obligations -or it should be- to reflect on the issues that affect the world we live in. Four main questions are explored and implicitdly posed in Manderlay's script: 1/ Is Democracy the best political system to have a free society? 2/ Can Democracy be preached by supporting the use of guns? 3/ What is the best solution to the race issue in America (and elsewhere)? 4/ Was Abolition, the way it happened, the best way to free the Afro-American population in the USA and give them equal rights?
Grace teaches the Afro-American slaves the rudiments of Democracy, but she does so while she's escorted and supported by a bunch of armed gangsters; therefore, from a position of power and white-race superiority - the same she believes she's fighting against. Moreover, nobody has elected her, so she shouldn't be preaching anything. If this wasn't enough, Grace tries, despite being white and not a slave, to teach the Afro-Americans how to be black and free without even asking them what they want and what their opinion is. Grace became a sort of slave in Dogville, but she did not learn her lesson there. The shock that she gets at the end of the movie masterly reflects how a just system can turn into oppressive when it is imposed on people who don't benefit from it and have no voice in its establishment.
The little moral of the story is not presented at the end, but right at the beginning, when Grace's father reminds Grace of an episode of her childhood. He tells her that she had a beautiful bird in a cage, that she freed it thinking that it was the best thing for the animal, but the bird, not being wild could not survive the winter outside; she found the bird frozen dead on her window next day. Grace, in fact, treats Manderlay's slaves with affection and love, but also with the same paternalistic ego-centered view of the world she treated her bird.
All the cast members are terrific in their respective roles. Bryce Dallas Howard is good as Grace Margaret Mulligan; Howard's sweet looks help her to convey Grace's naivety, but I found her acting a bit bland at times. I would have liked seeing Nicole Kidman back in the role, as she looks fragile and naive but has more maturity, a fact that would have given an extra push to the character; having said that, I don't think that frigid Nicky would have been convincing in the hot explicit sex scene in the movie. Also very convincing in their respective roles are Isaach De Bankolé as the proud and feisty Timothy, Danny Glover as wise Elder Wilhelm, and Mona Hammond as lovely but week Old Wilma.
The music is great. I loved the fact that the movie ended playing "Young Americans" by David Bowie as the lyrics are relevant to the story, as well as the photo-slide that accompanies it, which showcases the de-facto apartheid and lack of freedom of the Afro-American population in the USA until well-entered the 1970s, not when the Abolition was issued in the USA.
The main flaw of Manderlay is that the fact that the story can be easily twisted if interpreted literally; simple minds could say that the movie supports slavery or that blames the Afro-Americans for not freeing themselves earlier, which is completely the opposite of what Trier intends. Moreover, the movie is not engaging enough at the beginning, and a bit of more editing would have been advisable. Finally, the colours and quality of the film used are very poor, which might put off some viewers; Trier was much more careful in Dogville, and the film looked nicer on the screen.
Manderlay is a a very good film, not always engaging, not for the faint-hearted, but a valid reflection about the the flaws of the human spirit, and a wonderful metaphor about the problems that plague our contemporary Western world. I loved the ending. I hope Trier finds the motivation, inspiration, time and money to finish this amazing trilogy.
The Iron Giant tells the story of the fall into Earth of an alien giant robot, and his relation with a naughty child who lives with his single mother in a small town in the States.
The movie is set in the 1950s, during the Cold War period and the space race, when aliens and robot populated TV shows, comics and the imagination of everybody. The movie is able to reproduce the mood and style of the era, even the animation style, but with all the improvements that technology has brought to animation.
The characters are well drawn psychologically, which is not a surprise the movie being a Warner Bros'. Moreover, the cartoons have a superb body movement and facial expression.
The script is engaging and very entertaining, very funny and lovable. At the same time, the film address serious social and political issues in a simple approachable way, without lecturing: You are who you decide to be, if you respond to violence is your option., it is in your hands to make your own destiny no matter what your past is, your heart is always a great power to connect with others no matter how different they are. Great messages to pass on to children. All the voice actors are terrific, and the movie is never dull, but cheerful and full of life thanks to them. Eli Marienthal is terrific as the little hero Hogarth Hughes. Jennifer Aniston is extremely lovable as his mother Annie (perhaps Aniston's best performance ever...), Harry Connick Jr is very likeable as the quirky Dean McCoppin, Vin Diesel very sweet as the "brute" Iron Giant, and Christopher McDonald terrific as the annoying paranoid Government Agent Kent Mansley.
The Iron Giant did not have success at the box office when first released, due to poor marketing, but it has proven to be one of the most charming, entertaining and lovable animation movies of all times, matching Miyazaki's and other classics of 2D animation because of both the quality of its animation and script. The Iron Giant is a a movie with a great script, characters and old-style animation suitable for both adults and children. Forget the hollow modern movies for children, and show them one that has some substance.
Ana (Manuela Vallès), a young hippy talented painter living in Ibiza, is discovered by Justine (Charlotte Rampling), an Arts Patron who invites her to join an independent Arts school. Ana's first troubled love and sexual experiences, and her constant nightmares will get Anglo (Asier Newman) to perform hypnosis on her. Ana's past lives will be open to the viewer, but not to Ana, who will have to deal with her life chaos in unknown painful ways not being aware of what is causing it.
Chaotic Ana is a very
difficult conceptual film to watch, called pretentious and pointless by
many, or challenging and profound by others. You cannot watch it as a
linear story. This film requires of you a willingness to accept the odd,
the chaos and the surprising. This film requires of you a willingness to
embrace Medem's personal intimate story as it is related to Medem's late sister Anne, who was a remarkable
painter.
Chaotic Ana touches Universal themes and myths related to the Female and the myths of the Motherland (from Oedipus and Electra to primitive matriarchal mythologies). In his
odyssey of discovery of The Female, Medem takes us from the cave to the
skyscraper using the Ocean as a linking element
Chaotic Ana is -despite some shocking violent scenes- an ode against male violence and
wars, and against those individuals who start them; however, the film
also shows a blind faith in the goodness of Human Kind despite the
tragedies and havoc that we create.
Chaotic
Ana is both a reflection on Death and the void left by the departed -
Medem's tribute to his late sister.
Chaotic Ana is also an
invitation to see Art as a form of individual expression, a timeless
biography of the living, and a living legacy of the deceased. I especially liked some of visual shows shown in the House of the Artists.
The editing is complex and very dynamic. Every small detail in the film has a meaning and it is intricately related to what is happening in the story as a whole. This is one of those films that you need to watch more than once -if you dare or care enough- to get everything. The film continuously
unsettles the viewer, and there are some gory, violent and shock sex
scenes. The international cast members are just OK in their performances, but this is not a movie for them to shine as the script is what matters, and they are, in a way, just Medem's "mediums". Movies like this are never popular or highly rated, and are hated or loved, nothing in between. I loved it, but some of my friends -who are also fans of Medem- totally hated it. I always love a mental challenge, odd stuff, and artistic honesty, and this film has all of those things. However, the mediocre performances, the intellectual complexity of the script, and the length of the film do not help the viewer to connect with the film at an emotional level, just at an intellectual one, and not always. This is a pity, because that emotional connection is what Medem was looking for in the viewer.
This is a film not for the faint hearted. Not easy to watch. Difficult. Complex. Intricate. Interesting, nevertheless.
Garage is a movie about the life of Josie, a simple-minded good-hearted somewhat-autistic gas-station caretaker who craves affection and social interaction in an isolated Irish rural town.
The script reflects about the changes of the traditional ways of living and social interaction in rural areas through Josie's character. The movie is a good depiction of rural life and how modernisation has affected the pace and social dynamics of traditional towns, and a social group that is unable to harmoniously mix the new ways of living with with its very traditional hierarchic structure. The script makes many good points about social isolation and lack of adaptation, explores the nature (and limits) of friendship, the contradictions of modern Law and old ways of socialising, and the thin line separating success and fracas in such an environment.
Thus, the viewer witnesses the lives of the town's apparently happy (but deeply dissatisfied) dwellers, their miseries and broken dreams, their monotonous social interaction, their social hierarchy, and their latent immobility and frustration.
The main problem of the movie is its overall dullness and low pace, and the fact that some characters are just sketched, so their actions appear a bit out of the blue (so to speak) sometimes. Pat Shortt, the leading actor, is inexpressive in his performance, as most of the cast; I blame the mediocre direction and the unbalanced script for that.
The conversations of Josie with a horse, his interaction with some of the teens in town, his sexual frustration, his Spartan way of life, and the changes in other characters when Josie starts to behave differently trying to break his position as clown or punch-bag in the town are the things I liked the most. I also liked the ending, which is a bit unexpected, surreal and very moving, as it shows how a speck in your actions can create an unbearable tension in your psyche if you live in a narrow-minded rural town.
The dull performances by most actors, the dragging tempo, and the poor direction killed a story that had many possibilities and deserved a bit of more effort. However, this is an interesting film that shows a face of Ireland that is not usually presented in film, and whose premises could be easily transplanted to other rural European towns.
A single event in somebody's life can have repercussions in many others. That is the point of departure of this post-modern holistic view of human interrelations in a modern multicultural multiracial Los Angeles.
Crash is a choral film in which each character's mini-story links to the others in an organic way. This is not a film with good and bad people despite the initial appearances. As the film progresses, we see that all the characters are deeply human, and they are depicted in both their splendour and misery - sometimes they are disgusting, reproachable, racist, angry and violent; other times they are heroic, tender, kind and good. The characters are not
good or bad, are good and bad depending on the circumstances. As any
human being in any country in the world. Humans are never a behavioural block of concrete, and
there is more to any person than it catches the eye, as the eye is always
biased.The movie also succeeds at offering a raw unadorned honest and empathetic image of American society and its social and multicultural issues wounds, and most importantly, of the depths and multifaceted nature of the human spirit.
Paul Haggis does a great job at creating unity and giving harmonic pace and sense to the emotional physical and cultural chaos in which most characters live. The story has action and introspection, and the main characters are wonderfully drawn and played by all actors. All the cast members are great in their roles, but Matt Dillon (as officer Ryan) really stands out in his performance.
The film makes you think, but it is entertaining and approachable, sweet and harsh. A great film, with surprising twists.
** Warning - This review may contain spoilers. I recommend watching the movie and then coming here, especially if the ending intrigues you, and it will **
Mr Nobody is the story of Nemo, whose possible two life lines and three love stories are alternatively presented.
The movie is well
shot and the cast members convincing, especially Jared Leto (as adult
Nemo), who is always perfect in this sort of odd films and roles. Also excellent are Toby
Regbo (15y.o. Nemo), Juno Temple (15y.o. Anna) and Sarah Polley (depressive adult Elise). Diana Kruger (as adult Anna), Rhys Ifans (Nemo's father, Natasha Little (Nemo's mother), among many others, are OK in their respective roles.
The
visual effects are wonderfully understated, very well blended with and at the
service of the story. The theatrical movie sets, the
rich colours, the different hues attached to each different life path,
the wardrobe, and the lovely music -which mixes some old classic tunes with pieces specifically composed for the movie- create an ensemble that is very
easy on the eye.
However, Mr Nobody is a great movie mostly because of its subtle but profound reflection on Human Nature, Human behaviour, Free Will and the meaning of life. The movie reflects on questions like - what makes us what we are? Why we act the way we do? Is free choice a key element to happiness? How does other people's choices affect our choices? The philosophical, psychological, and metaphysical questions posed are sometimes explicitly mentioned, while others are hinted and expressed through the story as a whole, each different life line story in particular, and through Nemo and the other characters' behaviour. Among others, some of the concepts presented here are: 1. Butterfly effect. 2. Principle of Entropy. 3. Schrodinger's Cat Paradox 4. String Theory 5. The Pigeon's Superstition experiment 6. The Nature of the true self. 7. Free will and
fate. 8. The linearity of (or multidimensional nature of) Time. 9. Quantum Physics and parallel universes.
Do not worry if some of these things sound alien to you. They were also alien to me. However, they were intriguing enough for me to get more information, and try to understand what I have seen better. In fact, they are a reason to watch the movie again. However, you can watch it without even bothering, and you will find that the movie still speaks to you.
Jaco Van Darmael himself commented on the script and on his initial intentions in an interview. However, the story has taken a life of his own, way beyond the initial intention of the director.
***
THE ENDING OF THE MOVIE - MY INTERPRETATION The film ends in a way that is open to interpretation. Movie forums are full of comments on the ending, and on Nemo's different lives, actions and reactions. To, me, however, they miss a few important things that are pivotal to understand the way the movie ends. Or, at least, the way I understand it: 1/ The Lyrics of the song Mr Sandman, which is repeatedly played thorough the whole movie, especially the main verses. Are we watching something real or is it just a dream? A lucid dream? 2/ The beginning of the film, with the different possible endings, which all end with Nemo dead, lost in a rhomboidal aseptic nightmarish dream-like world. The narrator is Nemo himself. 3/ The scene where Nemo tells how he was born, which goes from minutes 12.20 to 15 approximately. Here my transcription of what Nemo's off voice says:
"I can remember a long time ago, long before my birth, in the squeezing with those not yet born. When we aren't born yet, you know everything. Everything that's going to happen. When it's your time, the angels of the living put their finger on your mouth and leave a mark on the upper lip. It means that you've forgotten everything.
But the angels missed me.
[Nemo immerses himself in a white milk-like liquid, as he is ready to being born]
Then you have to find a daddy and mammy, and that's not easy to choose.
[Different couples speak about their wishes to have a baby, until Nemo's parents appear]
In the end, I chose them because the lady smells nice, and the man said 'Well, I can tell you how we met. It meant to be. Have you heard of the butterfly effect?' ".
4/ The title of the movie is "Mr Nobody". Shouldn't this, per se, be an indication of something? Anything? Any bell ringing in your ears, yet?
Many of the
interpretations about the meaning of the movie
focus on the event that is photographed in the poster of the movie, but we need to remember that unborn Nemo chose his parents. Therefore, the moment of decisive choice is not the one in the poster, but the one of choosing his parents.
We are told, explicitly, that Nemo can see the future, any possibility in the future, every possible action and reaction in his life because the angels missed him. Therefore, all the couples that appear at the beginning are a possibility. Nemo chooses one. The more you think about it, the clearer you come to the conclusion that unborn Nemo is seeing his possible life IF he selected this couple as his parents, NOT after selecting them as his parents. Not convinced?
Now, we have the part of the movie in which we see centenary Nemo telling his life story/ies to a journalist. At a certain point, the world in which they are living starts to fade out and disintegrate, as it was a projection or a dream. And that is what it is. Something that is not real at all. All this world is white in colour, the same limbo and space of possibility in which Nemo immerses himself before being born. Old Nemo is not real, it is the way unborn Nemo sees himself if he chooses the parents shown at the beginning. If that wasn't true, how do you explain the fact that Nemo is the narrator of the three possible endings that we see at the beginning of the movie?
***
There are other movies that reflect on the effect that personal choice and randomness, free will, determination, fate, and the butterfly effect have in our lives. Just to mention three, just remember Sliding Doors, Run Lola Run, and Cloud Atlas. However, they do not have the clarity and depth that Mr Nobody has.
Mr Nobody is a very
complex film, which, however, is very entertaining and easy on the eye.
After all, it is a possible multiple love story. You can see it in many
different ways and give it the interpretation you want. However, this is a film that needs of certain frame of mind to watch it,
as this is not your usual fantasy or science-fiction movie.
Mr. Nobody is one of the most interesting and thought-provoking film I have watched in a long time. Perfect for Philosophy classes, and for oiling the creases of your brain in those days in which you feel them a bit rusty.Mr. Nobody is one of those movies that linger in the back seat of you mind for days, long after you have watched it. "No
choice is still a choice" is one of the statements presented in the movie on which I have been pondering for days. Would
knowing your fate help you to make a choice? Is one of those questions that did the same to me. The film
is full of statements and questions that will keep you thinking, for good. A cult film already.
Caramel is a Lebanon-France co-production with a charming story of female love, friendship and ageing. The story focus on the love lives of a group of young and middle-age Beiruti women who are regulars at a hair & beauty salon.
The movie mixes romance, humour and sadness with simplicity, warmth, and heart under the fresh direction of young director Nadine Labaki, who also plays the leading character.
The movie shoes a multifaceted image of Beirut and its dwellers, a city that is complex, diverse and rich in culture. Far from the stereotypes about the Midle East that we find in Western movies, Labaki is a local who knows her city, and brings to the screen the rawness and charm of everyday Beirut and of its dwellers. The movie has an honest and respectful approach to the interaction between Christians and Muslims, and how different social groups and genders relate in Lebanon.
The movie was shot in warm caramel tones, which is the colour of the home-made sugar wax traditionally used in Lebanon for waxing.
The music is a warm and sentimental mix of French and Arabic songs. Truly fantastic, but also very melancholic. All the actors are
terrific in their performances: Yasmine Elmasri as the modern Muslim girl Nisrine, who is going to get married; Joanna
Moukarzel as the boyish Lesbian Rima; Gisèle Aouad as the aging divorced
actress Jamale; Nadine Labaki as
Layale, a good-hearted girl in love with a bad man;
Adel Karam as the sweet policeman Youssef enamoured of Layale; Sihame
Haddad as the patient and shy single tailor Rose, and Aziza Semaan as an
impressive demented Lili.
Caramel is a heart-warming enjoyable chick flick, soapy at times, that offers a real portrait of life in Beirut and of Lebanese women. The story is narrated in an universal simple language, but breaks many stereotypes about religious confrontation in Lebanon and on how Middle Eastern Women think, feel or live.
The movie is based on Alice Seabold's eponymous book, which I read a few years ago and I absolutely loved. If you have not read the book, you will certainly watch the movie with different eyes. Unfortunately, Peter Jackson's adaptation does not convey the emotional depth of the novel. The Lovely Bones is the story of a murdered girl grieving her own death and the emotional struggle of her family after her vanishing. It is, above all, a story of sadness, guilt, resentment, and redemption by forgiveness and letting go.
Jackson focused on two aspects of the book to develop his movie. 1/ the murder investigation, and 2/ the recreation of the limbo, or pseudo-heaven, in which the girl stays. By doing so, he's forgetting the core of the book, what makes it so meaningful and memorable.
The thriller occupies a minor part in the book, while the grieving of the family, the despair, sadness, uncertainty, pain, love, hatred, forgiveness and self-forgiveness is what matters. In fact the issue of who's the murderer is directly avoided in the book from the beginning, and the name and face of the murderer do not appear until midway the novel. However, if Jackson wanted to create a thriller, why did he decide to show who the murderer is from almost the beginning of the film? The thriller is killed before starting! I really do not see the point.
Jackson has recreated limbo-heaven with great detail, awesome images and creativity. It looks gorgeous. However, all of that was unnecessary, since the limbo is barely drawn (narratively speaking) in the book, as what matters in the book is the story of the emotions. There are too many special effects and not enough lyric emotion or character drawing in the movie, too.
The acting is very good, by both adult and young actors. I loved young talented Saoirse Ronan, whose face transmits great lyricism and performs with great conviction her role. Susan Sarandon makes a terrific quirky drunk Grandma. Rachel Weisz is good, too, but she doesn't play her role with the intensity and conviction with which Mark Wahlberg plays his role of father and husband. Stanley Tucci is also terrific and the weird neighbour.
Jackson adapted The Lord of the Rings superbly, so I was expecting another superb adaptation. This is not the case here. The movie does not honour the book, its spirit and depth. Still, this is a beautifully filmed well-acted movie, with a great script and stunning visuals.
Antichrist tells the story of a couple's grief after the death of their child, their progressive alienation from reality, and their descend to a personal hell, especially after they retreat to their cabin in in the forest, which they call Eden. Antichrist also
narrates the trip of the female character "She" to her inner hell, so
she becomes a demon (or the Antichrist) in an Eden inhabited by only a
man and a woman.
The movie is structured in four parts: Grief, Pain (Chaos Reigns), Despair (Gynocide), and The Three Beggars, plus a Prologue and an Epilogue.
The Prologue in black and white is a short masterpiece, classy image quality and tones, wonderful music and mood, perfect tempo. It really sets the mood of the rest of the film, and offers a lyricism that gets lost afterwards.
Once the first chapter starts, the movie, its colours, its lighting, the atmosphere, and the acting start to dig in and unsettle the viewer with an unidentifiable menace that you feel even before the couple moves to the woods. That menacing feeling grows at the same pace as the tempo of the movie, being suffocating when the tragic events unfold. There are amazing oniric, premonitory and surreal images blended with the real facts, but these are progressively intermixed, and the boundaries between reality and unreality, sanity and insanity, get faded out.
The epilogue is very surreal, quite easy and light, more fairytale-ish in a way, and I thought that it did not glue well to the rest of the movie in story or mood.
The movie has only two
actors, William Dafoe as He and Charlotte Gainsbourg as She, who carry out the heavy
weight of the whole movie. Their physiques really suit the gloomy
characters they play. In both cases, the roles are very demanding
physically and emotionally, so their work has to be praised. I found,
however, that their personal chemistry was somewhat lacking. Cinematographer Anthony Dod Mantle produces superb bucolic images, but also eerie oniric images and tones, that are not complacent or decorative, but the third character in the movie.
Antichrist is a psycho-thriller, and it is barely gory or explicitly violent until the last 20 minutes of the film, which are horrific. The violence and horror in the movie mainly come from the atmosphere and the dark places of the human soul where the story takes the viewer to. The fact that Von Trier was quite depressed when he filmed this movie, helps the movie to portray sadness, depression, mania, mental alienation and therapy with great accuracy. The movie has that profound eeriness that Japanese horror movies have, too, but explores other themes, and is not as entertaining, to be honest.
The surrealism of the movie is more Buñuel-Dali's in "Le Chien Andalu" than Tarkosky's, although some of the forest scenes and images would remind the viewer of the Russian Master, especially in The Mirror.
***
A few tags have been attached to the film by a few critics and, more often, by those people who have not watched the movie or follow what other people say without any further questioning.
Critique given no. 1 - The movie is "offensively misogynistic" Really? I did not feel the hate towards women anywhere. The female character is a troubled spirit with a shocking behaviour, but if you consider that a proof of Trier's misogyny, you should categorise most Japanese horror film directors the same, as they have this sort of nasty women, too. To me, there is more misogyny in most Hollywood movies (in the way women are usually portrayed with regards to men and women) or in any bunch of randomly selected video-clips (where you will see women presented as trash and as pieces of meat) than in this movie. However, I don't see critics vehemently denouncing that.
The only misogyny in the film comes from the fact that the female character shifts the intellectual approach to her Ph. D. thesis called "Gynocide" (about the genocide of women through History) from a feminist one to a misogynist one. However, that is the direct result of her progressive mental and emotional alienation, in which she convinces herself that female nature is evil, as also her own nature, which explains the final horrific events. Von Trier offered an interview to Rotten Tomatoes, quite interesting, light and frank, that you might want to check if you want to see the movie or if you've already watched it On the other hand, the male character is patronising, intellectually patronising, and his approach to his wife's problem, despite the love he has for her, is too clinical and emotionally detached - aseptically empathic if you want. So is not misogynist either.
Critique given no. 2: "The viewer cannot relate to the characters and their circumstances". Of course not. The movie deals with maniac depression, even schizophrenia at times, grieving, pain, and alienation. They are not sane characters. You do not need to relate to them at all.
Critique given no. 3: "The film is depressing". That's for sure, but, again, is a film about grieving and sadness, and the viewer knew that before watching the movie. Critique given no. 4: "I do not know the point of the film", or "What is the movie about?". I think that, if the film had been more entertaining, you would not be asking that question. That is the director's fault. Still, the film has many different readings and interpretations. Some of the surreal and oniric images have no explanation, or as many explanations as you want. That is so, because our subconscious world is never straightforward or easily explainable: A fox eating itself alive, a gazelle with a dead foetus coming out, the sex scene under the tree, the dreams of the female character, some elements of European folklore and wizardry to mention just a few eerie (horrific to me) images. The mix of visual and narrative elements is overwhelming, and very complex.
***
Antichrist is an excellent movie, confusing a times, not entertaining enough, not easy to watch at all, with good performances. It contains horrific impacting images and moments that will upset you, especially if you are not into horror films. The film is still fascinating, but you are not going to recommend it to anybody to pass the time or have a nice relaxing Sunday afternoon.
Just a warning. If you are interested
in watching explicit sex images, you better chose another movie, because
you will be disappointed with the ones here, as the number of them is
limited, of short length, and anti-erotic. Nothing that will turn you on
- Guaranteed.
Cold Souls is a comedy of the absurd with some surrealist and existentialist touches, and a philosophical query on the nature of the soul.
The film departs from a quote from Descartes that says that the soul is located in a little place in the brain, a premise that leaves out one of the most interesting aspects of the nature of the soul. The script is more interested in asking and answering the following questions: What exactly is the soul? How affects the soul to the building of the self and defines who we are? What would it be not having a soul and being just a corporeal being? What would it be living with the soul of another person? Why would anybody want to empty out his/her body from his/her soul?
Paul Giametti plays himself, better said, a version of himself - an actor in crisis, burdened by the weight of role he's playing on his mood and spirit -even though this is just created by his job-, who goes to a clinic where the soul can be extracted and stored, restored and exchanged, whatever you like. What happens Giametti in his quest to be soul-lighted without his soul is the core of the story.
Giametti shows once again what a great actor he is. Russian actress Dina Kurzun, who plays a "mule" of souls between Russia and the US is OK in her role. The other actors are all mediocre in their respective roles.
The tone of the film is somewhat depressing and grey, which goes well with Giametti's character. In fact, all the characters in the movie are very serious and grey, as if all souls in the world had that same defect. I think that it is the best part of the movie, i. e. the depiction of a world of grey souls always unsatisfied about being human, always wanting to be perfect. Humans avoiding everything that makes us humans. The unwillingness of humans to see within, to deal with our emotions, feelings and problems, our past and present. The soul as a product of trade, like our society, in which everything is for sale, and bogus people are everywhere. These elements are openly and clearly presented in a successful way through Giametti's dialogues and part of the storyline.
On the other hand, I see a contradiction, a deep one, between what the director wants to portray and what actually the characters in the script portray. If the soul is undeniable linked to our emotions and feelings, and their weight makes us what we are, how is possible that a person without soul, empty, can be aware and suffer from not having a soul? If your soul is not yours but that of another person, how do you know (from an emotional point of view) that the soul is not yours? If the soul is located in a part of the brain, how can the brain work normally after the soul has been extracted? The movie does not success at offering response to these questions, and in fact mixes things up a little bit.
Despite the serious tone of the film, the main concepts that the movie deals with are examined superficially. Perhaps, a lighter story an characters and a deeper analysis of the philosophical elements of the script would have produced a more engaging film. I am thinking, for example, in The Truman Show, which did just that without losing any depth, and being an entertaining movie at the same time.
There is a problem with the music too, at least to me. A couple of songs in French appear from nowhere halfway the movie. They are beautiful and very much of my liking, but they do not fit with the rest of the music and the general music ambience of the film. In fact they were a shock and a distraction from the scene that they were paired with.
The film has an excellent starting point and some very original ideas, but the tone of the film is too serious on one hand, and too descriptive in the other. It is not a drama or a comedy either, an ambiguous mix instead.
I think that, still, that this is a daring and original film.
'I love the movie poster. It's great and pretty much sums up the main concept of the film in just one shot.
Nobody Knows tells the story of a group of four siblings before and after their abandonment by their mother.
The movie is magical and poetical, but also heartbreakingly hard, from the first scenes to the ending. It has great lyric moments combined with very lovely light ones.
I was surprised that the director and the script did not use such a hard story to make the viewer sob, or to make the viewer mourn for the children. That would have been not only predictable but make the script mundane, and not the lyric piece it is. Instead, the viewer witnesses the children's hopes, hunger, despair, acceptance, survival, union and happiness, despite everything. Although the story of the misery of the children is explicitly told, what catches the viewer's eye is the emotional positive outcome that misery brings to these kids. One of the things that shows this clearly, is the part related to the secret garden that the kids start to grow in their balcony, and the enthusiasm and effort that they put into it.
Sometimes you feel so immersed in the life of the siblings, that you feel as if you were there, enduring the heat, the bad odours, the hunger, the playfulness, and their problems. That is so because the director creates a very intimate connection with the viewer, something really special.
The children actors are UNBELIEVABLE, especially the leading young actor, Yuya Yagira, who delights us with a moving mature strong performance. You do not feel they are actors performing, giving life to a script, but real children abandoned and filmed. That says a lot about the art director, too.
I did not like the title, which does not convey what happens in the movie. Nobody Cares would have been a more accurate one.
Irreversible is a very confronting raw and violent French movie that tells the story, in reverse chronological order, of a serious of violent events happened during the return home of the female protagonist Alex. The least you know, the more shocking and though-provoking the movie will be.
Three main themes are explored in this movie. 1/ The
movie is an exploration of Sexuality - Sex as mean of human
communication and love, versus love as a mean of hatred and subjugation.
Sex as pleasure versus sex as abuse. The intimate scenes of
Alex and Marcus are all sensuality, playfulness, joy and love. The
conversations about sex between Alex, Marcus and Pierre explore the
matter of pleasure and human connection, of what makes humans click
sexually. The rape scene is an antithesis to all of that.
2/ The movie reminds the viewer that there is nothing to forget or forgive about rape. The movie is a brutal depiction of the brutality that any rape against any woman is. One of the most
asked questions regarding this movie is, did the rape scene need to be so brutal and 9-minute long? Despite how hard was watching it, especially if
you are a woman, I think the answer is yes, for several reasons:
Because (too) many
people out there consider rape a second-rate crime and somewhat blame
the victim or excuse the perpetrator. There are judges around the world
saying that the victim somewhat provoked the rapist with her sexiness or behaviour.
Because the effects
of rape are very damaging, emotionally and mentally, and some people
cannot understand them unless they have been raped or seen a rape.
Because the erotic industry somewhat glamorises women being raped. Rape is
always a brutal act, even if the rapist does not beat you, but there are
rapists doing nasty brutal things to women, something worse than anything depicted in this or any other movie.
3/ The movie is a successful reflection on the double-side of human nature and of the two faces of violence. The messages embedded
in the story are important and offer a glimpse of what is having a
normal life full of hopes and joy, to found it completely turned over
and ruined by violence in a matter of hours. Telling the story backwards makes the story not only more interesting and intellectually engaging (or is it puzzling?!), but also a very successful way of exploring this theme as we feel an instant repulsion and disgust towards the characters that appear at the beginning of the film, and towards their language and behaviour. Some of the ethical questions posed by Noé are: Even if there is a good reason for such acts, is violence justified? Who is more ethically an morally reprehensible, the nasty person who does a nasty thing, or the good person who does a nasty thing? Does nastiness and violence have class or gender? Noé's message is that violence is always repulsive no matter the reasons (or lack of them) behind and that normal
people can be as violent as violent people in certain circumstances. If we had seen the events narrated in chronological order, we would have, perhaps, justified them.
The atmosphere of the movie is excellent, as well as its hues and music. The use of strobist images is sickening, but it helps to unsettle the viewer since the beginning. However, there wasn't any need to use so many strobist images and for so long as, by doing so, the movie becomes a little bit hallucinogen and the viewer loses focus; to be honest, I would used strobist images quite differently and with a different timing.
I found Monica Belluci great as Alex both in the sweet and playful scenes, and it the harsh ones; she demonstrates here that she is not just a pretty face. Jo Prestia is superb as the disturbing disgusting rapist Le Tenia. Vincent Cassel is just OK as Alex's boyfriend Marcus, while Albert Dupontel is good as Alex's best friend Pierre.
Among the downsides, beyond the overuse of strobist effects, I would mention two. The first is the opening scene, which is irrelevant and does not add anything to the story. Moreover, All the gay thing was really unnecessary as does not add anything to the story and is very negative bordering homophobic. There are heterosexuals who would have similar sort of clubs and behaviour. This is not an easy film to watch, and it really gets you upset. In that regard, it achieves what aimed, as it makes you think and react against the motto of "an eye for an eye", violence confronted by violence, and reminds you that rape is a brutal act of violence, not just an act of sexual abuse.
If you can stand the whole ordeal and reach the last minutes of the movie, you will get to the start of a relaxing bright day that was full of promises, which is how most of our days start before something bad happens. That is life in its full splendour and nastiness.
Little Miss Sunshine is a road movie about a dysfunctional family trying to take their seven-year-old Olive to an interstate beauty pageant from Alburquerque NM to Redondo Beach CA in their yellow Volkswagen Van.
Little Miss Sunshine is an fresh, witty and enthralling movie with freak and quirky characters, brilliant dialogues, great performances, and an original story. It is an entertaining funny crazy film that makes you think about
subjects that are never confrontationally presented. What makes a family dysfunctional? At the beginning of the film our family seem to be dysfunctional and freak, although they are depicted in an empathetic way and epitomise, in a way, the dysfunctions that most so-called-normal families have. The thing is, the family
does not push Olive into the pageant, does not force her to dress or
behave in a certain way, does not dress her as little prostitute, does
not expect anything from her, just supports her the whole way, even
when everybody turns against her. The other parents, the "normal" ones,
appear as real freaks after all, projecting their frustrated dreams and personal failure into their little kids. All
of the sudden, the dysfunctional family is quite sound, warm and caring,
the others just the opposite.
There is a subtle but clear criticism of the ideal of the American dream and of the self-help books and coaching focusing on becoming rich. The character of Richard epitomises the bullshit that these sub-culture has, pushing people to fight for money success following recipes that frequently lead to failure for which they do not prepare anybody. Sheryl the mother is instead the voice of common sense and more successful in her approach to life and its problems.
There is also a very cleaver non non-confrontational criticism of child beauty pageants. The script poses a rhetorical question to the viewer: what is it freakier, a
beautiful child sexually dressed wearing sluty make up who poses and
moves as a sexy adult, or an innocent child who sings and dances to a
raunchy song that she does not understand? What happens to Olive at the pageant is the answer that the script gives to that rhetorical question, and surely the one you would identify the most.
The movie provides the viewer with many iconic movie images, which will imprint your retinas and stand the pass of time: The pushing of the van and the music, the girl singing "super freak", the escape from the hospital, among many others.
If this was not enough, all the actors give unforgettable performances in their respective roles: Toni Collette as the family's warm-hearted sound mother Sheryl, Greg Kinnear is her unsuccessful husband Richard, Alan Arkin as Richard's dirty father Edwin, Steve Carell as Shery'ls gay suicidal scholar brother, Abigail Breslin as the sweet innocent Olive, and Paul Dano as Olive's half brother silent rebel Dwayne.
A biopic loosely based on the story of the great Late-Roman female Philosopher, Astronomer and Mathematician Hypatia of Alexandria.
Most movies about the
Roman Empire are unsubstantial, entertaining in the best cases. Have a
look at the titles produced in Hollywood recently and you will see what
I am talking about. We do not have many movies that offer an
intimate study of a brilliant female intellectual. We do not have many
movies in which women are treated with respect or not presented
subordinated to men. However, Agora does just that - the contrary.
This is a movie about the decadence of Rome not about the Roman Empire. The movie shows with
great easiness and without lecturing, the decadence of the Roman Empire,
and the processes of conversion of pagan societies into Christianity.
This is a movie about Early Christians, but not the victimised heroes that we are usually presented with in old Hollywood and European films.
This is a movie about a woman who was intellectually respected and revered by men, a woman who preached by example and was true to herself until the last moments of her life.
This is a movie about an epic quest for knowledge and understanding, not about epic battles.
This is a movie about ideas not about special effects.
This is a movie against fundamentalism, dogmatism, intolerance, ignorance and irrationality, about the necessity of Philosophy and Science to advance and build a better world. The movie shows that mobs are never right or understanding, just a bunch of stupid animals, even if the principles that brought them together are valid in essence and origin.
Rachel Weiz really shines in this movie, despite the Mathematics of it! She looks beautiful beyond words. Most importantly, she wholeheartedly embraces her character and portrays Hypatia with talent, class and conviction. Oscar Isaac also offers a heartfelt convincing performance as Prefect Orestes, as well as Michael Lonsdale as Hypatia's father Theon. I had a mix of feelings regarding Max Minghella's performance as freed slave Davus, whose dramatic intensity I considered overbearing at times. The same can be said of some of the actors playing the fanatic Christian characters in the movie.
The digital reconstruction of Alexandria is beautiful and realistic. Malta Landscapes beautiful. The sets, the lighting, the colours, the dresses, the actors' characterisation, the mood and cinematography of the films are all wonderful.
Agora has also some flaws. 1/ Firstly, that it is a little too long and slow-paced. 2/ Secondly, all the explanatory texts that link different periods in the movie are too long and distracting, and very TV-series-ish; I agree that the viewer needs of some historical contextualisation, but I am not sure that this was the best way to do it. 3/ Thirdly, although the space-to-earth shots showing the roundness of Earth before falling onto Alexandria are relevant to Hypatia's quest about the shape and movement of Earth, they are unnecessarily repetitive, and a final single scene with this would have sufficed and served as a modern thoughtful epilogue. 4/ Finally, the movie has historical inaccuracies, artistic licences that can be taken by the word by many viewers; still, this happens in almost any American historical movie and nobody seems to care, perhaps because they are sugar-coated and more easily digested. The depiction of the Christian mobs made Agora unmarketable in the American market, where Christian fundamentalism has power, and the movie had a very limited release. Christian fundamentalist groups all over the world, infused in their own dogmatism, were unable to see beyond the obvious and publicly complained about the film.
Agora is, despite its flaws, a great movie with good acting, magnificent atmosphere, a powerful message, and a big heart. If you are looking for just entertainment, battles, action, and erotic moments in the Roman Empire this film is not for you. Still, there are hundred reasons to watch this movie, especially if you are seeking for something different to feed your mind.
Intimacy is a European co-production directed by French director Patrice Chereau in his first English speaking feature, also set in the UK. The script is based on two pieces by writer Hanif Kureishi: the book "Intimacy", and the short story "Nightime".
Intimacy tells the story of Andy, a divorcee bartender who meets Claire in his apartment on Wednesdays to have sex, no words involved... until they start to click emotionally and Andy starts following her.
Intimacy is a soaring and raw movie about midlife disenchantment, and the need of physical contact to build emotional one.
The film has been controversial due to the presence of explicit sexual scenes. However, reducing such a good film to just these scenes is intentionally misleading, moralistic, and completely unfair to a story that presents many problems of middle-age in a raw way: divorce, loneliness, emotional emptiness, fracas and rejection, life disillusion, life stagnation and lack of perspective, the conflict between being and adult having to carry your responsibilities and the inability to carry yourself, unhappiness and hope. All of this is beautifully blended and portrayed in the film. The sex scenes are very strong, simulated most of them, but very convincing as they feel very real. The viewer gets the impression that is watching a real couple in their most intimate moments. The sex is always raw, and goes from almost brutal to sweet, from hungry to delightful, from anxious to comforting, with all the body language and emotions associated to different emotional states. Being so, the viewer does not feel aroused by the images, but sad and anxious about the couple being so in need of human contact and emotional intimacy, and so unable to connect. In that regard, the film creates a clear line between what sex is not, and sets a clear boundary with porn, despite the fellatio in the film being non simulated. The mood of the movie is a mix of night and interior greenish/yellowish depressing scenes and warm and luminous ones. The art direction is great, as well as the music.
The performances by all actors are terrific, convincing and powerful, especially by the leading couple Mark Rylance (as Jay) and Kerry Fox (as Claire), in two roles that are extremely demanding both at a physical and emotional level. The supporting actors are also convincing: Alastair Galbraith as Claire's husband Victor, Philippe Calvario as gay bartender Ian, Timothy Spall as Jay's drug addict brother Andy, and Marianne Faithfull as Claire's friend Betty, among others. Although Galbraith is always terrific, I do not think he was the right person for his character, as it is difficult to believe that Claire would be with this sort of guy, honesltly.
A very sad movie, not easy to watch, with confronting images and themes, moving at times, with a very powerful story, wonderfully performed and directed.
A Swedish romance and horror film based on the eponymous novel by John Ajvide Lindqvist, who also wrote the script.
Let the Right One In tells the story of the friendship between Oskar, a 12y.o. weak sweet boy bullied at school, and Eli, a 12y.o. strong lonely vampire girl who moves to Oskar's building in Stockholm.
If vampires existed in the modern world, how would they live? Most probably as they are portrayed in this movie. It is the believability of the story what will appeal to people who usually hate vampire movies, like me. The story does not focus on the gory part of the life of a Vampire, but on the physical and emotional needs they have to survive and how they make do in the modern world. At the same time, the vampire theme glues well with a story that would have been terrific per se as it approaches with honesty the sins of modern urban society: isolation, loneliness, craving for affection, miscommunication, and friendship/love as redemption. The struggle of Oskar at school, his alienation from his divorced parents, the struggle of Eli to be loved and have a normal life, her guilt at having to kill to survive, are equally believable and intriguing. The appeal and success
of the movie are indebted in equal parts to the script and the terrific
performances of the leading young actors Kåre Hedebrant as Oskar, Lina
Leandersson as Elis, and Patrik Rydmark as the leader of the bullies.
The leading couple has great chemistry on camera in part because both
kids have a physique that mixes innocence and strength, and they
complement each other physically.
The atmosphere is fantastic - peaceful and menacing at the same time. One of the best points of the cinematography is that it is rarely "dark", but virginal white or very luminous, even the night shots, so most of the clichés of the genre are turned over and revamped, leaving those elements strictly necessary for the narrative of the genre to work in the 21st century. The movie has some funny and shocking scenes, too, the one with the cats and the burning in hospital among the most memorable.
An excellent romantic horror film, with a terrific script, good performances and a great atmosphere, which will captivate both lovers and haters of the genre. An American remake has recently been made of this film, also with very good reviews, but who wants to watch an imitation, the original being brilliant?
Match Point is a UK-USA-Ireland-Russia Co-production, mostly shot in London, and directed by Woody Allen.
The story revolves about a love triangle between young retired tennis player turned businessman Chris Wilton (played by Jonathan Rhys Meyers), his wife the sweet good-hearted rich girl Chloe Hewett (Emily Mortimer), and the bombshell struggling actress and Tom Hewetts' girlfriend Nola Rice (Scarlett Johansson). This is one of those
stories we have seen brought to the big screen many times, a Hitchcock's
theme in a way, the love triangle, the crime, the coward. The first scene of the movie is very philosophical and it is a good premise of the drama that will unfold:
"The man who said "I'd rather be lucky than good" saw deeply into life. People are afraid to face how great a part of life is dependent on luck. It's scary to think so much is out of one's control. There are moments in a match when the ball hits the top of the net, and for a split second, it can either go forward or fall back. With a little luck, it goes forward, and you win. Or maybe it doesn't, and you lose."
Luck is more important in life than you can ever expect, and it is always unpredictable and fanciful. In fact, the story is all a story of a very good luck for Chris's character, especially at the end. However, this is a romantic psycho-drama with a predictable plot, so the interesting premise gets diluted very soon. In other words, the movie is too mundane to be philosophical, and pretending the contrary is... pretentious.
The film is shot in a very fresh way, has a nice bright artsy atmosphere and hints of Allen's sense of humour (especially in the policemen's conversations at the end). The actors do a good job in their respective roles, although this is a mini-coral movie. Meyers has a good chemistry with both Mortimer and Johansson, and he's able to portray with believability the double face of a cheater, and also the difference between love and passion. Emily Mortimer shines as a very believable sweet bland woman who is blind to anything she does not want to see. Johansson also shines in her femme fatal role, which she always nails.
The soundtrack is a mix of modern and old opera arias. Carusso's old records are intercalated in the middle of the movie to highlight the actions of the characters. Modern performances are played while the characters attend performances in the theatre or hear some records.
The movie has a nice feel about it, is well filmed, decently acted, and has a good direction. However, the movie does not add anything new to the genre, is too predictable, has a poor script and important flaws in the murder story. A bit dull but enjoyable the same.
Web of the Movie A wonderful Australian independent plasticine movie that tells the story of a life-long mail relationship between Max Jerry Horowitz, an old autistic atheist Jew from New York, and Mary Daisy Dinkle, a weird 8y.o. girl from Melbourne. Mary and Max is, above all, a story about social maladjustment and the ups and downs of life, but a happy story about real friendship and personal identity. Mary and Max are unglamorous suburban people, with mental and social problems who are
wonderful because are imperfect and human. They are not presented as weirdos or as marginal people, but in an accepting humorous way. The intrinsic point of departure of the film is that life itself is dysfunctional; therefore, the dysfunctions of the characters are just normal, part of who they are and a result of what life brings to their lives. It is this approach, and the emotion that the characters convey, what makes the viewer connect to Mary & Max instantaneously, so the viewer feels their failures, successes and worries as if they
were those of real people. This is, however, both a drama and a comedy, and there are many humorous winks to the viewer; the animal characters (both pets and urban animals) are
hilarious. The aesthetics and
atmosphere of the film are wonderful, with at terrific use of Black and White with red plashes and ochre details, which perfectly encapsulate the mood and personality of the different characters and the different stages of their life and relationships. They are, in a way, the outer projection of Mary and Max's personality, or even a reflection of how they see reality, not the way reality is seen by others. After all reality is about or perception of it. The music is terrific, too.
Most actors are great
in the dubbing of the characters, especially Toni Collette as Mary, and
Philip Seymour Hoffman as Max, and Renée Geyer as Vera.
This is not a movie for
children. It touches subjects that are complex and could be
disturbing or difficult to explain to a child: alcoholism, social
failure, mental disorder, bullying, death, homosexuality, suicide, etc.
This is, however, what will attract adults, and what makes the movie so special. Three things would have improved the film enormously. Firstly, a little bit of more of lightness (less clumsiness) in the movement of the puppets, and also more definition in the facial expressions of the characters would have improved the look and feeling of the film immensely. Secondly, most of the characters' speech is limited, so we see them moving but not talking that much. Finally, and directly related, the third-person narration is overwhelming - too much of it and in the wrong tone. I consider a mistake the selection of Barry Humphries as off narrator, as his dubbing is emotionally misleading; he narrates the story as if this was a fable before bed told to a kid, but this is not a children movie by any means. It would have been great converting part of the narration into dialogues of the characters, which would have given more fluidity and a better pace to the story and the movie in general.
This is a great animation film, with a terrific story, which moved me immensely. The story, is what will captivate you.
Mary and Max was a hit at "Sundance", and has won an accolade of awards since then.
